Search results

documentation. The hearing request is filed in response to an' August 18, 1989 " Order Modifying License and Order to Show Cause Why Licenses should Not Be Revoked

(ALAB-761) in this docket. The time provided by NRC regulations within which the Comission may act to review has expired. Accordingly, the decision became

Docket No. 50-537 It has been brought. to our attention that pages 53 and 54 were inadver-tently omitted from the "NRC Staff Testimony Concerning Adequacy

forwarding to you a cc rection to the proposed Board Order, paragraph 6, signed by the parties, which I indicated was being prepared in the "NRC Staff Response

view of the settlement agreement and the motion to terminate, the NRC Staff is not filing a response l to Philadelphia Electric's scheduling. motion. Sincerely

87-554-0LA l The NRC staff has reviewed the direct testimony filed by the Licensee and the Joint Intervenors on October 11, 1988 and has decide 1 not to file any

filing its response to the intervenors' contentions regarding energency planning and THI-2 issues. Sincerely, Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Dr.

1988, LILCO filed a motion to compel Suffolk county to respond to discovery. The NRC Staff does not propose formally to respond to Applicant's motion as it

2) s Docket No. 50-320 OLA, ASLBP,No. 87-554-OLA k J in order for the Staff to participate efficiently in this proceeding, we request that the Licensing

Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS ' ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO LICENSE NO. SNM.33,. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. (ASLAP NO. 89-593-01-MLA)

DATE: February 19, 1986 This is to inform you that the time provided by NRC regulations within which the Comission may act to review the Appeal Board decision

6, 7 and 8, and 10. The Staff will not be filing a response to Lit.CO's metion alrectec to contentions 1 ano 2. Sir)ceyely, ( 4 ( l,'l orgy E. ohnson Coun

Exercise) With regard to LILCO's Motion for Protective Order in Response to Suffolk County's P?otion to Compel (filed November 21, 1986), the NRC Staff takes no

a Petition for Suspension of License that was filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 with regard to the Rockwell . International Corporation's Santa Susana Field

[Table view] Category:MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE [Table view] Category:NRC TO ASLP [Table view]

50-443/444-OL-1 ALAB-886 This is to inform you that the time provided by HRC regulation within which the Commission may act to review the Appeal Board decision

21 ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML 1 Per your request, I am today forwarding to you and to the three petitioners a copy of Rockwell's current Radiological Contingency

Safety issues This is to inform you that the NRC Staff does not plan to file a response to NECNP's motion for leave to file a reply to Applicants' response

Safety Issues This is to inform you that the NRC Staff does not plan to respond to Applicants' August 2, 1988 revised motion to compel discovery from the

has been' granted to all parties until October 4, 1985 to file, if deemed appropriate, motions for reconsideration or other responses to the Licensing Board's